Roberts, court's right wing differ on ballroom
By: Maureen Groppe
USA Today
WASHINGOTN - Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts this year [2026] led a majority of his colleagues in rejection President Donald Trump's efforts to impose sweeping tariffs, redefine birthright citizenship and remove a leader of the Federal Reserve.
.....
In those rulings, Roberts joined with the court's three liberal justices and at least one other conservative justice.
..... But when it came to the 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom that Trump is building, Roberts was the lone conservative who voted to pause the project while it's being challenged in court.
.....
"That constructions is likely unlawful," Roberts wrote in his dissent of the court's 5-4 decision to let construction continue.
.....
It was only the third time since Troop's return to office that Roberts disagreed with all of his fellow conservatives on an emergency appeal to decide whether an administration policy could move forward until a legal fight was resolved.
..... As with the ballroom, both of the previous cases involved spending matters.
.....
Last year, [2025] Roberts was the sole conservative who voted against letting the administration cancel $65 million in teacher training grants.
..... That happened again when the vie other neoconservatives - but not Roberts and the three liberals - said the administration could slash hundred of millions of dollars' worth of health research funding.
..... In his dissent on the ballroom construction, Roberts wrote that the project - which has nit been approved by Congress - probably infringes on lawmakers' ability to control federal spending and to regulate federal property.
..... "Today's [08/28/2026] decision is no victory for the separation of powers," he wrote.
..... While the ability of the administration to get around Congress' control of spending was a theme in all three interim rulings in which Roberts dissented, the ballroom fight also raised a question about whether the case even belonged in court.
.....
Roberts disagreed with the majority of his colleagues about whether the National Trust for Historic preservation - which objects to the design of the ballroom - can meet the legal standard for showing it would be sufficiency harmed by the project.
..... "Robers is usually with the conservatives on this," said Erwin Chemerinsky., dean of the law school and a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, of the clout's interpretation of what's called "standing." "But he was willing to accept an aesthetic injury - which lawyers has been regarded as sufficient for sanding - while the conservative justices were not. ultimately, it means that even if the president's actions as to the ballroom are unconstitutional, no one will have standing to sue to challenge them."
..... Roberts emphasized the "distinctive nature" of the White House as an "iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture."
..... The majority if justices, by contrast, said the court has "repeatedly held hat ere offense, disagreement or distastes" is not the legitimate basis for a lawsuit.